Speed limits...

[lightspeed]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in here before...but do you guys and gals think speed limits are actually needed, functional...and if so why. I'm going to be writing a persuasion paper on this and some opinions would be great. Thanks in advance.

BTW.... we are all doing over the speed limit even when we are standing still (the earth rotates at approx. 1038 mph at the equator)...

[YZFRydn]

Speed limits I think do some good for most people. For me psychologically, if I am in a 55 and doing 65 in the car I am not going too fast but at exactly the right speed. If for say, there were no speed limits, I would probably do 80-90 in the cage and faster on the bike. I'll write a better opinion once I get home from the bar.

[PhL0aTeR]

[WidowmakerDutch]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed in here before...but do you guys and gals think speed limits are actually needed, functional...and if so why. I'm going to be writing a persuasion paper on this and some opinions would be great. Thanks in advance.

BTW.... we are all doing over the speed limit even when we are standing still (the earth rotates at approx. 1038 mph at the equator)...

Yes I do believe there are a need for speed limits. We all know people can't do 55 or even 75 half the time. Whether we are two wheeling it or caging it. We all go a little over the limit. The only reason I say we need it is because we all know the 45mph driver that is in the left lane on the highway SLOWING everyone down to them. Now can you imagine someone coming up from the rear at over 200mph. Not only is that going to put both drivers involved in the accident, but many more people in danger from the aftermath. Speed limits are needed for that reason, someone will always push the limits , and will take chacnes. But I would chose it be pushed at 75 than no limit at all.
That's just my two cents, I could be wrong, I could be right.

[Tipys]

I for one am all for the Germany driving training. 2000plus hours of driving and class work to get DL. You lose it have to start all over, lose it for DUI never get it back. I think we would have to improve are vehicles made by the USA. But that would only make no speed limits ok in some places. You would still have to have something in areas of schools, businesses, and houses. For the simple fact of kids and other unknow things. Now for it to even be a thought the driving training and improving the vehicals is beyone a must. Now if those things were to change then yes I could go for no speed limit in certian areas. Simple thing is people cant control there vehicals with speed limits. So if these ever came up to a vote of any kind it would never pass. One so many people agesnt the idea and safety. Even if the safety was upped like I stated before there are even more people would be agesnt having to go back for driving training. Just my 2 cents

[lightspeed]

Now can you imagine someone coming up from the rear at over 200mph. .

Yes, I CAN imagine that.....lol

[Mental]

Another key to the need for speed limits would involve the lack of any real road worthiness inspection here in the US. Even in states where they have them, they are a joke. Combine that with the ridiculous age we allow peaple to drive, the legal and social perception that driving is a right rather than a privledge, a total lack of proper driver training and the abilites of even the most mondane of cars availible to anyone these days, and you have a huge prescription for disatser.

[lightspeed]

I for one am all for the Germany driving training. 2000plus hours of driving and class work to get DL. You lose it have to start all over, lose it for DUI never get it back. I think we would have to improve are vehicles made by the USA. But that would only make no speed limits ok in some places. You would still have to have something in areas of schools, businesses, and houses. For the simple fact of kids and other unknow things. Now for it to even be a thought the driving training and improving the vehicals is beyone a must. Now if those things were to change then yes I could go for no speed limit in certian areas. Simple thing is people cant control there vehicals with speed limits. So if these ever came up to a vote of any kind it would never pass. One so many people agesnt the idea and safety. Even if the safety was upped like I stated before there are even more people would be agesnt having to go back for driving training. Just my 2 cents

So...you're saying that more training=possible no or higher speed limits?

And..does speed kill or do people kill?

[Tipys]

Lots and lots of more training, improving USA made cars, upping safety standards, improving roads, better public transportation, min speed limits so there will still be a limit, and truly making driving a privilege . If all that happens then maybe. But you still have to many people that see it as a right.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

Another key to the need for speed limits would involve the lack of any real road worthiness inspection here in the US. Even in states where they have them, they are a joke. Combine that with the ridiculous age we allow peaple to drive, the legal and social perception that driving is a right rather than a privledge, a total lack of proper driver training and the abilites of even the most mondane of cars availible to anyone these days, and you have a huge prescription for disatser.

I absolutely agree that there is a perception of right vs. privilege. I understand what you are getting at with the age remark - but I think we can take that one step further. This also goes in line with what Trevor was saying. Our licensing is a bit goofy if you ask me. Yes, you have to take the tests initially, but after that.... you fill out paperwork and take a vision test. THAT is ridiculous to me! I think we need to increase the requirements for license renewal and this will help take care of the age issue that I think Mental was getting at.

Having said as much, we currently need the speed limit where it is at (IMO) to almost protect us from ourselves and everybody else out there. If we were to improve the roads, cars and assure that there is a better quality of driver out there - then heck yes, increase it! I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with having NO limit...except perhaps in certain freeway situations.

It comes down to the fact that the faster you are going, the quicker your response time has to be. There comes a point where reaction time just cannot keep up with the speed of the vehicle. The hard part is finding that delicate balance.

[BigE]

My two cents...In populated areas there is a need for speed limits, i.e. the dumbass who I yelled at going down our very narrow residential street (which is 30mph and too fast), we had a chit chat when he stopped because I called him a dumbass. I told him he was indeed a dumbass for doing 70 down our street. He rebutted that he was only doing 50! (BTW, he was accellerating when I yelled at him )
On the other hand, I dream of the day when there would be no limit for daylight hours going on highways like I-80 across Utah and Nevada. Those are the land of eternal mtn. ranges...as in, I've been driving for two hours at 80mph and those mtns sure don't look any closer! Basically, if it's a hundred miles or more between towns/exits with no cross traffic...why do we need a speed limit during the day?

[= Buckeye Jess =]

I thought I was told once that there are parts of the Nevada freeways with no limits during daylight hours....was someone just blowing smoke up my keester?

[Zach929rr]

You got it coming out your ears!

[Mental]

So...you're saying that more training=possible no or higher speed limits?

And..does speed kill or do people kill?

I know you're talking to Tipysis, but I have a response.

Years ago I got a tickett in Nebraks and went to a "class" to dodge the pionts. The cop actually walked in and asked how many peaple were there for speeding, most of the hands went up. Then he asked who was there for running a light, failure to stop etc, and the rest of the hands went up. Then he asked who had been involved in an at fault accidnt in the last year, almost all the same hands stayed up, with almost no speeders.

His piont was speed doesn;t kill, inattetive driving does. This was long before texting was all the rage. He pionted out that peaple who don't pay attention are dangerous. What does this have to do with speeding? Well a little.

Do a quick search on the safest and most dangerous countries to drive. You will find most of the industrailised "1st world" couyntries are safe. Germany isn;t the safest, but its up there. Finalnd is also pretty high. You most dangerous places actually dont; even have that many cars, but huge problems with DUIs etc. I want to say its south america, but I'm not sure.

Here in the US, we are headed down that road. We do not traing our drivers, they have many devices in the cockpit to distract them and cars are more powerful. When I was in high school, the car to have wasa Mustang GT or an IROC (yes i am old, bite me) Both of these cars were fast, and put our about 200 HP. Today a Honda Odessy makes 240. I mean hell, a dam Hyundai Genesis is over 300. Each od these cars have satillette radio, and the drivers are chatting a way on phones, or texting, or Spongebob blaring in the back. We all know this becuase they try to kill us on a daily basis.

So to that end, a speed limit is a viable measure of attemting to control safety. Its not the most efficient, but until we get serious about driving in the US (and we won't), we do need to have some measure of control.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

You got it coming out your ears!

LMAO...I'm not surprised! I was told that quite some time ago and frankly forgot all about it until I read this thread.

[longrider]

LMAO...I'm not surprised! I was told that quite some time ago and frankly forgot all about it until I read this thread.

Actually it was true a long time ago. In the 60s and early 70s Nevada had no speed limit and Montana had a 'reasonable and prudent' limit. These were on open roads inthe daytime only. They both went away with the 55 limit in the late 70s. Montana reinstated the 'reasonable and prudent' limit sometime after 55 was repealed but it was challenged in court as being too vague so now they have a limit

[haelo]

Most people drive safely on the autobahn.

Consider using autobahn examples in your paper. They have relatively low accident and fatality rates in the sections that are speed limitless.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

Actually it was true a long time ago. In the 60s and early 70s Nevada had no speed limit and Montana had a 'reasonable and prudent' limit. These were on open roads inthe daytime only. They both went away with the 55 limit in the late 70s. Montana reinstated the 'reasonable and prudent' limit sometime after 55 was repealed but it was challenged in court as being too vague so now they have a limit

Well there you go, I'm not as nutty as I think I am!
There's a thought for you lightspeed - try to pull records on accidents and such from those areas while there were no limits. Naturally the data will be a bit skewed in view of the different challenges facing drivers nowadays, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

[Mental]

Most people drive safely on the autobahn.

Consider using autobahn examples in your paper. They have relatively low accident and fatality rates in the sections that are speed limitless.

Actually no, the autobahn has a limit of 120 kph. Now you are allowed to exceed that in the stretches outside of metro areas, but the high court back in the late 80's early 90's decided that in doing so you assume total liability for any accidents. This was the result of a case where a car was moving at very high speeds when another pulled out to pass a truck. The high speed car basically obliterated the little car.

I was in Germany in the 90s and it didn't slow anyone down, it just adopted a big boy appraoch to enforcement. But Germany took pains to make sure peaple knew the bahn had a limit. Today as the urban areas have expanded just like the rest of the world, there are very few un-enforced areas of the autoboahn. It is still avery efficient way to get around and the speeds are still high, but its not the glory it once was.

[Captain Obvious]

Autobahn also has restrictions on passing on the left side. And it is enforceable. Be nice if we enforced our "slow traffic move right" rules.

My .02 We need limits for several reasons.
1) there is a portion of the driving population who doesn't have enough sense to keep their vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed without a restriction (obviously still not followed by many)
2) We have some of the worst and most untrained drivers in developed nations so any 'tard can get behind the controls of a 3000 lb missile with little knowledge of what there are doing
3) Since reasonable and prudent is variable by ability and vehicle in discussion, a certain legal vs illegal point has to be set
4) Some people need to be directed on where to go, how to get there, etc, etc. This includes the rate at which they proceed

That said, speed limits are silly. (but I always follow them if any El Paso Sheriff's are reading). And I fully agree with a major issue is driving being a right vs. a privilege. In the US, in my experience, we would be better served to enforce and punish many other laws that exist rather than speeding limits. IMO, speaking on the cell phone while driving is more dangerous than speeding.

[Matt]

In crowded areas, they are needed to keep pedestrians safe (imagine a 75 MPH limit in downtown Denver). Away from town where traffic is lighter, I don't think they are needed.

Imagine the back roads without speed limits (or perhaps 100 MPH limits to keep things from getting completely out of control). Imagine they also had plenty of passing zones. Yellow signs like "35 MPH turn ahead" could warn people of tighter turns. That would allow people who know the roads the ability to get around.

How about tiered licensing. Give people who want to get additional training more freedoms on the open road. Suppose you get pulled over for 100 in a 65. The officer sees you have a higher tier license and lets you go.

I'm not advocating recklessness, I'm talking about people speeding safely when road and traffic conditions allow. Its a nice thought, but the government is more about taking away freedoms than enhancing them.

[lightspeed]

I know you're talking to Tipysis, but I have a response.

Years ago I got a tickett in Nebraks and went to a "class" to dodge the pionts. The cop actually walked in and asked how many peaple were there for speeding, most of the hands went up. Then he asked who was there for running a light, failure to stop etc, and the rest of the hands went up. Then he asked who had been involved in an at fault accidnt in the last year, almost all the same hands stayed up, with almost no speeders.

His piont was speed doesn;t kill, inattetive driving does. This was long before texting was all the rage. He pionted out that peaple who don't pay attention are dangerous. What does this have to do with speeding? Well a little.

Do a quick search on the safest and most dangerous countries to drive. You will find most of the industrailised "1st world" couyntries are safe. Germany isn;t the safest, but its up there. Finalnd is also pretty high. You most dangerous places actually dont; even have that many cars, but huge problems with DUIs etc. I want to say its south america, but I'm not sure.

Here in the US, we are headed down that road. We do not traing our drivers, they have many devices in the cockpit to distract them and cars are more powerful. When I was in high school, the car to have wasa Mustang GT or an IROC (yes i am old, bite me) Both of these cars were fast, and put our about 200 HP. Today a Honda Odessy makes 240. I mean hell, a dam Hyundai Genesis is over 300. Each od these cars have satillette radio, and the drivers are chatting a way on phones, or texting, or Spongebob blaring in the back. We all know this becuase they try to kill us on a daily basis.

So to that end, a speed limit is a viable measure of attemting to control safety. Its not the most efficient, but until we get serious about driving in the US (and we won't), we do need to have some measure of control.

So, basically speed limits are like child proof tops. They protect children (in their ignorance) from something they are too little experience to know what to do with.

Do you think it's fair that those who have developed the skills/ability/wisdom to drive without speed limits should have to suffer with speed limits and subsequent tickets b/c of joe blow who refuses to gain said skills etc.?

[lightspeed]

Well there you go, I'm not as nutty as I think I am!
There's a thought for you lightspeed - try to pull records on accidents and such from those areas while there were no limits. Naturally the data will be a bit skewed in view of the different challenges facing drivers nowadays, but it should be interesting nonetheless.

Yes, good idea!..I haven't gathered a bag full of data...but from what I've read, in places where the limits are higher...there are fewer accidents.

[Devaclis]

The speed limits are fine. The people who get caught speeding and refuse to admit they were doing wrong are idiots. The people who think the street is a racetrack are idiots. Those who want a 200 MPH limit on highways are delusional. The roads are made for the masses, not the asses.

I have sped. I have been caught doing it. I never argued with the fact that I was speeding or that the speed limit was wrong for the stretch of road I was on. It is fun. Some people can do it safely. You know what is cheaper than a $350 ticket? a track day, or two.

If you want to change the laws do us ALL a favor and save the "I have a bike capable of 187 miles per hour, you need to make a speed limit to reflect that" or "I have take training classes and I am certified to ride as fast as I can" argument because you are an idiot and you make the rest of us look bad. Do you think a fat old dude who likes single malt scotch, expensive hookers, politics AND power is going to listen to 1 word you have to say? Your training or "qualifications" have no bearing on how fast you should be able to drive/ride on a public road.

BTW: I am an idiot too so save you direct attacks.